WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

I think the Guardian dropped the ball when it focused on Julian Assange's "flaws" & stopped reporting the information supplied by Wikileaks.

<snip>

It seems to me that quite a few of the newspapers which originally worked with Wikileaks have rather lost their nerve under pressure from governments at this point in time.

Considering how we know that there is so much bad, there's really no risk, Art.

Has WL lost control of the information/cables any more so than the US lost control of the information/cables?

Thousands exposed by WikiLeaks purge
(DYLAN WELCH, Peninsula Weekly, 03 September 2011)

AS MANY as 3300 US diplomatic sources - including many in authoritarian anti-US regimes who could face imprisonment or death if discovered - have had their identities revealed via the release of the unedited WikiLeaks diplomatic cables trove.

As the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, and the British newspaper The Guardian blamed each other for the release, a US State Department spokeswoman declared WikiLeaks was continuing ''its well established pattern of irresponsible, reckless and, frankly, dangerous actions''.

The release occurred this week, after a link was discovered online between a password included in a book by a Guardian journalist, David Leigh, and an encrypted file holding the entire database stored on a file sharing site, thepiratebay.org.

The news quickly spread via Twitter and by yesterday the 251,287 unedited cables - allegedly leaked by a US army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, last year - were rapidly spreading across the web.

Most concern yesterday centred on people who live under violent regimes who had risked their safety to provide information to US diplomats.

A search by the Herald revealed 3381 instances of some variant of the phrase ''strictly protect'', which is used after sources' names to indicate their identity should not be revealed. All those people's identities are now public.

There would be hundreds, perhaps thousands, in countries such as China, Iran and North Korea who could face harassment, imprisonment or death.

Other breaches of privacy also occurred, including the publication of the names, dates of birth and passport numbers of people on US terrorist watchlists.

Fascinating glimpses of the secret world of diplomacy continued to emerge. A Canberra embassy cable from March 2009 referred to a recent ASIO security assessment, which stated the US mission in Australia was at high risk of a terrorist attack.

The cable's author speculated that the risk could be because of extremists in Australia, or ''the report may reflect an attempt by ASIO to influence policy and maintain funding for high-risk diplomatic protection efforts''.

Yesterday the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, announced ASIO and other government officers were trawling through the cables ''to see the extent of the impact on Australian interests''.

Mr McClelland referred to an article by the Herald yesterday that revealed the cables named a senior ASIO officer whose identity is protected by law. ''I am confident Australian media outlets will exercise caution in identifying individuals,'' he said.

Information is certainly powerful. We've witnessed this firsthand. Using that power, without knowing it's full depth is irresponsible. Now that WL has lost control of the cables, there can be no real hope of controlling how the information is used. It cannot be said that the information can only be used for good.

WL upon gaining access to said cables recognized the potential for harm.

Fascinating glimpses of the secret world of diplomacy continued to emerge. A Canberra embassy cable from March 2009 referred to a recent ASIO security assessment, which stated the US mission in Australia was at high risk of a terrorist attack.

The cable's author speculated that the risk could be because of extremists in Australia, or ''the report may reflect an attempt by ASIO to influence policy and maintain funding for high-risk diplomatic protection efforts''.

Yesterday the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, announced ASIO and other government officers were trawling through the cables ''to see the extent of the impact on Australian interests''.

The cable's (US) author speculated that the risk could be because of extremists in Australia, or ''the report may reflect an attempt by ASIO to influence policy and maintain funding for high-risk diplomatic protection efforts''.

governments should have recognized the danger and considered how to manage things at least a decade ago.

The U. S. government never had control of the cables. I consider it sheer stupidity that they didn't take security more seriously to begin with. It is not as if it was a surprise to anyone involved with information forensics that this was a possibility.

The idea that the information was being hidden for a good reason or with good intentions is also baffling.

that they would redact information to protect innocent people.

MrsMowbray

5 September 2011 2:15AM

Reading some of the profiles various (what a poster above calls) 'back stabbing prima donnas' have written about Assange, it seems obvious, to this reader, that the 'back stabbing' is the correct term. Both Bill Keller's January 26 2011 New York Times portrait of Assange is a very craftily written piece of - depending on your view - propoganda/journalism, because he paints a picture of Assange that is quite childish in its execution, though sophisticated in style. He recounts Assange's first meeting with Eric Schmitt, who he'd sent over after Rusbridger had first put the publishing proposition to him, quoting Schmitt's email sent to him that delivered his impression of Assange; his scruffy appearance, dirty socks and smelling in need of a bath.

Keller then spends a few paragaphs not quoting Schmitt but still, offering up a scene written as if he was actually there in London during this first meeting between the publishing 'partners' (or 'back stabing prima donnas'), as a fly on the wall, casting Assange as a nerdy wierdo IT geek and misfit out of place, because he was dirty and smelled and was, all round, not the same calibre as this bunch of sophisticated men of Letters, whose business of writing what they sell as 'news' in papers, Assange was singularly unqualified to be a part of.

Keller wrote that 'we considered Assange throughout as a source, not as a partner or collaborator, but he was a man who clearly had his own agenda', which is telling, I think. Reading Rusbridger's remarks over the last while, coupled with other reporters involved, the narrative that emerges is one of highly competitive newsmen, there in that unique meeting because of one man's efforts, and, as is clear, wanting to cut him out of the picture, wanting their own newspapers and themselves to bathe in a glory their moralizing editorials highlighted as being shone upon the world of war for the benefit of 'us'.

It's not hard to imagine they preferred he would just hand over the goods and to cut him and his organisation out of the picture.

Schoolboyish in its transparency, some of the biggest egos in global journalism, El Pais, Guardian, NYT & Der Spiegel, all getting on grand and the only problem being the nerdy wierdo 'source'. It would have been so much easier for the 'real' journalists if this security obsessed chap would just be a good boy and do what they wanted, rather than having to put up with his silly games.

And now they are standing round trying to blame him for his unprofessionalism, it's all Assange's fault, not their's. But, as this story is unfolding, it's clear the protaganists have egg on their faces. A classic blooper, all the human ambition, all the good work, all the moralising editorials, exposed by their own hubris. They didn't know the one simple rule of secrecy and professionalism in dealing with encryped files. Before, the Guardian editorials sounded as if it was one solid voice of certainty, higher and purposeful, speaking from the side of moral right, whereas now that voice has lost its gravitas, Rusbridger and the rest, hung by their own petard. Reading them, it seems it was just a game to them, I think. Assange could took all the heat whilst they could enjoy the fine dining and dinner party conversation, avoiding any danger, leave that to the dirty smelly chap with a rucksack, their geeky source who could take the fall.

The most fascinating thing about this debacle is, it's running in real time. Only now are Leigh and the rest realising, on Twitter, the scale of their blunder, via tweets and immediate responses, a more sincere kind of human news. No more disembodied newsmen moralizing for the rest if us from on high, but humans, hubris and a world never the same again. Assange the one, depending on your take, the villian or the hero. He may well go to prison for a long time, and should this occur, will intimidate many from siding with him, and it will be left to a generation ahead of us to see the right in what he did, when all the self-serving politics of the situation, from the president to the humble homeless geek, from Rusbridger to the anonymous blogger in the comment box, are no longer clouding the truth.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange won't be prosecuted in Australia
(By Lucy Carne, The Daily Telegraph, September 05, 2011)

WIKILEAKS' founder Julian Assange will not be prosecuted despite breaking Australian law and identifying an ASIO officer, according to the Attorney General's office.

The 40-year-old journalist is at the centre of a political and media storm following his release of more than 251,000 US diplomatic cables on the internet.

The classified cables were published by the Australian’s whistleblowing website WikiLeaks for anyone to see and with no sensitive information or names redacted.

Among the deluge of information were the names of 11 Australians on a US “no-fly list” and 12 on a US “terrorism watch list” - none of whom were charged.

The identity of an ASIO officer was also revealed in the unedited haul of information.

It is against the law to publish the identity of an ASIO officer.

However, the Attorney General’s department was not preparing to investigate or prosecute Assange because he did not operate in Australia, a department spokesman said yesterday.

Assange’s decision to publicly release all the sensitive documents has triggered outrage from the UK and US governments.

The US Justice Department and Pentagon are conducting criminal investigations into Assange and are reportedly seeking to prosecute him under the 1917 espionage act.

Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland also condemned the move.

“On occasions before this week, WikiLeaks redacted identifying features where the safety of individuals or national security could be put at risk,” Mr McClelland said in a statement on Friday.

“It appears this hasn’t occurred with documents that have been distributed across the internet this week and this is extremely concerning.”

In a rare interview with CBS 60 Minutes, screened yesterday in the US, Assange denied his decision to publish the unedited material was reckless and put lives at risk.

“There is no evidence, or any credible allegation or even any allegation, that we have caused any individual at any time to come to harm in the past four years,” he said.

However he added that the process was not perfect: “We don’t say that it us absolutely impossible that anything we ever publish will result in harm. We cannot say that,” he said.

In response to the Australian government's criticism, Assange last week called the Attorney General’s department rats.

“Robert McClelland bemoans having his department being publicly caught out ratting out 23 Australians to the US embassy without due process,” Mr Assange said online.

"If Mr McClelland is unhappy about being caught out, perhaps he should consider cancelling my Australian passport again.

"It has not, after all, proven terribly useful to me the last 267 days of my detention without charge. Or, perhaps he could do us all a favour, cancel his own passport and deport himself?"

Assange is under house arrest at Ellingham Hall, a mansion in eastern England, since British courts released him on bail pending a decision on a Swedish extradition request for his questioning about sexual misconduct allegations.

He is yet to be charged in relation to the alleged rape and sexual assault of two women in Sweden last year.

However the London’s High Court decision on his extradition is due soon and Assange’s visa to England has reportedly expired, potentially placing the Australian in a state of limbo.

Assange has also been dealing with the souring of once cosy relationships he had with some newspapers.

He accused Britain's Guardian of releasing the cable cache's password online, an accusation they deny.

The Guardian claimed Assange tried to access WikiLeaks’ donated funds to help pay his legal bills over the Swedish extradition.

He also privately promised “thousands of Australian dollars” to the satirical website The Juice Media, which is run out of a suburban Melbourne backyard, the paper alleged.

The Juice Media did not reply to request to comment.